Doesn't deserve to be public prosecutor: Supreme Court on TN law officer who withheld key evidence

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Tamil Nadu government’s response to strong remarks made by the Madras High Court against a public prosecutor who failed to place crucial evidence before the trial court in a rape case.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on a challenge by the public prosecutor against the observations made by the High Court in its order.

However, while doing so, it questioned the prosecutor's credibility for failing to produce an accident register before the trial court despite the register being part of his case diary.

The register contained details of the injuries suffered by the rape victim.

"He does not deserve to be a public prosecutor. Such a vital document you withheld. It was available in your case diary. May be technically you may be right that no notice was given but you don't deserve any notice, as a matter of fact. You don't deserve to be a public prosecutor." the Court said.

The Madras High Court had taken serious exception to the action of the public prosecutor while hearing a plea to suspend the sentence of a man convicted of attempting to rape a Scheduled Caste woman.

It noted that after the alleged rape, the victim had been examined at a government hospital on the same day. The doctor had recorded four injuries in the accident register, including an abrasion on her lower lip, nail marks on the front of her neck, vaginal bleeding and a contusion on her hard palate.

However, the High Court found that the accident register was never marked in evidence before the trial court by the prosecution. It also noted that the doctor who had examined the victim was not questioned about the document.

It had then directed the Director of Prosecution to examine the manner in which the trial was conducted. The Director subsequently found a lapse on the part of the public prosecutor and recommended his removal to the State on July 7, 2025.

The High Court noted that the State had not acted on the recommendation. It criticised the government for allowing the matter to remain pending.

“By keeping the file pending, the government is in fact enabling this unfit person to continue in the post and continue to cause injustice to other victims as well.” it said.

The High Court also questioned why the matter had been referred to the government when the district collector was the appointing authority for the law officer.

“Presumably, the same has been done either to help the law officer concerned or to keep the matter under cold storage.” it said.

It then made wider observations about the appointment of government pleaders, public prosecutors and law officers, saying such appointments should be based on merit and professional competence.

“It is deeply disturbing to note that the State appears to be appointing government pleaders / public prosecutors / law officers not on merit, but on the basis of their proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation.” it said.

It also criticised the practice of appointing persons without adequate professional qualifications.

“Such appointments, at times, extend even to individuals whose only apparent qualification is their involvement in menial political activities, such as affixing posters during elections,” it added.

The High Court also referred to an earlier decision in which it had directed the State to frame guidelines for selecting government law officers.

On the prosecutor in the present case, the High Court said the accident register had been available in the case diary but the prosecutor had not taken steps to bring it on record.

“Therefore, it appears that the law officer either deliberately evaded marking the document or was not equipped with the basic knowledge of conducting a criminal trial before the Sessions Court.” it said.

Therefore, the High Court suo motu impleaded the Theni district collector and the secretary to the Home Department and directed them to decide on the recommendation regarding the prosecutor within four weeks.

The public prosecutor subsequently approached the Supreme Court in the present proceedings challenging the High Court's observations against him.

The top court on Monday issued notice to the State on the plea.